More: Why rap is rock

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    More: Why rap is rock

    Happened to find a short essay on "Why Rap is Rock" written by a blogger.   Seems to have some merit; if you're so inclined, give it a chance.   I've only cut and pasted a few paragraphs, but I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing -- it's comparable to two book pages, max;  it's a very quick read.   Informal, nothing scientific, very entertaining, and lastly, it makes sense.  

    Why Rap is Rock

    To tell the truth, you can almost understand how people honestly fail to see just how rap fits into the larger rock puzzle, mainly due to the fact they're basing their entire definition of rock on something else from the same time rap appeared rather than tracing rock's evolution in all directions through the years.

    You can even comprehend people trying to keep rap out for more nefarious reasons having to do with defending their own preferences from something that threatens to overtake those tastes in impact and popularity. But any way you look at it hip-hop is far more connected to the origins of rock 'n' roll than heavy metal or progressive or alternative ever were for instance, and thus demands to be included equally in the discussion. If you wanna get rid of 'em all in the rock family tree you'd have an easier time defending that decision than if you choose just any one of them individually to cast aside. But why discard any of them when they add so much texture to the ever growing fabric of rock 'n' roll in the first place?

    Like any creative entity rock 'n' roll has evolved in ways that nobody could've foreseen when it began in 1948 and as a result it has grown very wide shoulders, which is precisely what has allowed it to remain the most culturally relevant music through the sixty-plus years it's been around.

    With each new stylistic shift and every new plateau attained along the way rock's hold on the public's imagination only deepened. In the process of this remarkable evolutionary growth rock has, at times, seemed to become too unwieldy for many people to grasp, and so, selfishly and capriciously, they've continually attempted to narrow its parameters in order to satisfy their own musical preferences and resist the tidal wave crashing into their cultural prejudices. The problem with this method of selective inclusion is that it EXcludes some of rock's most dynamic and vital creations which in turn weakens its very existence and if allowed to continue would eventually destroy the viability of the rock genre entirely.

    How is this possible? Hasn't rock's lengthy history proven that it is almost indestructible? Sure, but only because it hasn't shunned its various creative differences as they've sprung up but rather fully embraced them and welcomed them into the fold, ensuring that successive generations will continue to identify with and want to be associated with the term rock music because rock has allowed itself to grow along with them.

    Naturally what began as a fairly uncluttered field in the late 40's began to grow exponentially over the course of just a few years so that as more and more artists emerged, borrowing from what immediately preceded them but then adding their own creative experiments, it soon came to resemble nothing like that which had been commonplace only a few short years before, yet was intrinsically tied to it nevertheless. Multiply that trend by dozens of new emerging styles for each short musical life span that take place every few years, then multiply that growth over six decades of evolution and you wind up with what you have today, where rock 'n' roll has branched out so far stylistically that the various offshoots seem utterly alien to one another.

    Yet in truth they all stem directly from the same root source and all have the same basic goal in mind, to be a cultural prism for the current musical generation, and as a result, from punk to funk, doo wo-p to hip hop, they are all part of the ever-growing rock 'n' roll family.

    http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/why-rap-is-rock.html

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    One person's opinion.

    However, very unconvincing, very vague and offering no new revelations that would sway my opinion....which is that Rap is not Rock. 

    Even if this was written by an "expert" and I doubt that, I continue to trust my ears which listened to more Rock music than the vast majority of people. 

    Rap can be "influenced by" Rock, it can be "incorporated into Rock", but they are two different styles of music. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    Rap is not Rock, Disco is not Rock, Motown is not Rock, Rap is not Disco, Motown is not Rap, Soul is not Rock, The Dave Clark Five is not Rock, etc. but it all is Pop. But good rap as I stated in the other thread has more to do with RnR than a lot of other forms of Pop music.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rich1273. Show Rich1273's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    I think Hip Hop evolved from stuff like Soul, Funk and Disco, which evolved from Rock, so it is definitely related and in the "family tree" of Rock. I can see the argument from both sides saying that hip hop evolved from rock and so is related but also that it has an entity on it's own and deserves to be labeled as such. It's like an evolution debate about a common ancestor lol. It unquetionably evolved from the rock fmaily tree, but it's different enough to be a distinct genre of it's own.

     

    This isn't necessarily related and I don't know if this has been posted here before. It's a link about the evolution of different genres over the last 100 or so years

     

    http://www.concerthotels.com/100-years-of-rock

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    One person's opinion.

    However, very unconvincing, very vague and offering no new revelations that would sway my opinion....which is that Rap is not Rock. 

    Even if this was written by an "expert" and I doubt that, I continue to trust my ears which listened to more Rock music than the vast majority of people. 

    Rap can be "influenced by" Rock, it can be "incorporated into Rock", but they are two different styles of music. 

    [/QUOTE]

    As I said above, the article is more entertaining than enlightening, but it at least offers some reasoning about the idea that rock music, in general, should always be pushing the boundaries and should not merely slack off into safe, known, familiar territory. 

    That is part of the inherent value of rock music, afterall, and the idea of stifling any effort to add to rock's unlimited and ever-growing "family" doesn't sit well (for everyone).  

    I still think that this blogger, and everyone else who are in the "rap is rock" camp are really saying that rap is derived from rock, not that they are the same style.   

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    One person's opinion.

    However, very unconvincing, very vague and offering no new revelations that would sway my opinion....which is that Rap is not Rock. 

    Even if this was written by an "expert" and I doubt that, I continue to trust my ears which listened to more Rock music than the vast majority of people. 

    Rap can be "influenced by" Rock, it can be "incorporated into Rock", but they are two different styles of music. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Rock is not a single style of music. Which style of Rock is authentic Rock?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    Rock IS a single style of music that has been influenced ( I find my self using this word a lot lately) by every style of music that came before it. 

    A. Jazz is not Rock

    B. Blues is not Rock

    C. Classical is not Rock

    D. Folk is not Rock

    E. Country is not Rock

    I'll attempt to elaborate:

    A. Groups like Chicago fused with Jazz with Rock....helping create a sub-genre...however Jazz is not Rock.

    B. The Yardbirds , Animals and many bands that followed incorporated Blues into the Rock family....creating the sub-genre 'Blues Rock'...but while modern Blues is rockin', and many Rock songs are Bluesy....these are two different styles ( close cousins in fact, but not exactly the same).

    C. Beatles used strings on songs Eleanor Rigby and She's Leaving Home. These are not Rock songs, but the Beatles most certainly were a Rock band. By doing so they started a sub-genre Progressive Rock which would become huge in the 70s....Classical music was not Rock but it marries up extremely well with Rock as groups like Emerson , Lake and Palmer have proven ( although they are the best , they are considered unworthy of entry in the RRHOF while RunDMC and Neil Diamond are more worthy....SHEESH!!!, somebody wake these people from their slumber....puhleeze!)...Prog Rock has classical influence ( there's that word again!) it is stil Rock, augmented with classical instruments such as flute and strings.

    D. Bob Dylan went electric and created the sub-genre 'Folk Rock' which would explode at Woodstock and grow from there....but Folk is not Rock on it's own.

    E. Country music followed Rock's lead ( and Dylan's) by going mostly electric by the 70s. So much Rock music ( Charlie Daniels Band, Marshall Tucker Band , etc.) crossed over to Country fans....but Country was a style long before Rock...it remains a heavy influence on Rock.

    Rap draws from James Brown who was an influence on Rock. Does the the fact that James Brown influenced Rock and Rap mean that Rap is Rock?...of course not. Dylan has influenced Country , Soul and Rock.....do we refer to him as a Country singer?

    It's true that Rock has many sub-genres....RAP IS NOT ONE OF THEM. I say this because A. you hear all the sub-genres played on Classic Rock stations, but you hear no Rap, B. Rock was never confined to a particualr race or region...Rap started as music for inner city Black kids ( it isn't anymore, but this is where it starts...break dancing and all that) C. Rap has eclipsed many sub-genres of Rock in popularity ( I admit this) and by doing so it is completely and fully a style all it's own.

     

    With this response I think I have presented the most thorough argument I can muster. I will fail to convince people with this , and I don't care. This is strictly my opinion and it is the opinion of someone who has at least as much credibility as anyone else on this subject.

    With this I rest my case and ask for a vote from those who are following along at home.

    Think of me as the Perry Mason of the Rock'n'Roll courtroom.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    With this response I think I have presented the most thorough argument I can muster. I will fail to convince people with this , and I don't care. This is strictly my opinion and it is the opinion of someone who has at least as much credibility as anyone else on this subject.

    With this I rest my case and ask for a vote from those who are following along at home.

    Think of me as the Perry Mason of the Rock'n'Roll courtroom.

     



    The lines are open.   Vote for ZILLA:  1-RAP-ISNOTROCK.   

    Lines are open until 5:00 p.m.   

    Cool. Use left and right arrows to navigate.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to Rich1273's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think Hip Hop evolved from stuff like Soul, Funk and Disco, which evolved from Rock, so it is definitely related and in the "family tree" of Rock. I can see the argument from both sides saying that hip hop evolved from rock and so is related but also that it has an entity on it's own and deserves to be labeled as such. It's like an evolution debate about a common ancestor lol. It unquestionably evolved from the rock fmaily tree, but it's different enough to be a distinct genre of it's own.

     This isn't necessarily related and I don't know if this has been posted here before. It's a link about the evolution of different genres over the last 100 or so years

     

    http://www.concerthotels.com/100-years-of-rock

    [/QUOTE]


    I like the evolution as shown in the chart.  As a former manager of mine would say, "pictures" are a good way of illustrating a point, and part of the point there is just seeing the growth of the genres (to their detriment ...) and how much has changed over the years.   There simply is no need to have that many sub-genre names for metal -- although a metalhead would probably be able to justify all of them.  :) 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    This just in:

    I learned yesterday that my niece entered a rap contest (she writes her own material and has a name she uses that includes the "$" symbol, it's very funny), and is a finalist.

    She's been into rap music for what seems like forever and she is very good, as evidenced in the video that was sent to me.   I would love to post it, but it's not anonymous and therefore, I simply can't.   Bummer. 

    I should just ask her if rap is rock from her perspective.   It was so funny this came up in light of the threads we've had.   It appears she entered the contest as a lark, and despite her level of skill, never expected her audition video to spark this much interest.   Crazy. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rock IS a single style of music that has been influenced ( I find my self using this word a lot lately) by every style of music that came before it. 

    A. Jazz is not Rock

    B. Blues is not Rock

    C. Classical is not Rock

    D. Folk is not Rock

    E. Country is not Rock

    I'll attempt to elaborate:

    A. Groups like Chicago fused with Jazz with Rock....helping create a sub-genre...however Jazz is not Rock.

    B. The Yardbirds , Animals and many bands that followed incorporated Blues into the Rock family....creating the sub-genre 'Blues Rock'...but while modern Blues is rockin', and many Rock songs are Bluesy....these are two different styles ( close cousins in fact, but not exactly the same).

    C. Beatles used strings on songs Eleanor Rigby and She's Leaving Home. These are not Rock songs, but the Beatles most certainly were a Rock band. By doing so they started a sub-genre Progressive Rock which would become huge in the 70s....Classical music was not Rock but it marries up extremely well with Rock as groups like Emerson , Lake and Palmer have proven ( although they are the best , they are considered unworthy of entry in the RRHOF while RunDMC and Neil Diamond are more worthy....SHEESH!!!, somebody wake these people from their slumber....puhleeze!)...Prog Rock has classical influence ( there's that word again!) it is stil Rock, augmented with classical instruments such as flute and strings.

    D. Bob Dylan went electric and created the sub-genre 'Folk Rock' which would explode at Woodstock and grow from there....but Folk is not Rock on it's own.

    E. Country music followed Rock's lead ( and Dylan's) by going mostly electric by the 70s. So much Rock music ( Charlie Daniels Band, Marshall Tucker Band , etc.) crossed over to Country fans....but Country was a style long before Rock...it remains a heavy influence on Rock.

    Rap draws from James Brown who was an influence on Rock. Does the the fact that James Brown influenced Rock and Rap mean that Rap is Rock?...of course not. Dylan has influenced Country , Soul and Rock.....do we refer to him as a Country singer?

    It's true that Rock has many sub-genres....RAP IS NOT ONE OF THEM. I say this because A. you hear all the sub-genres played on Classic Rock stations, but you hear no Rap, B. Rock was never confined to a particualr race or region...Rap started as music for inner city Black kids ( it isn't anymore, but this is where it starts...break dancing and all that) C. Rap has eclipsed many sub-genres of Rock in popularity ( I admit this) and by doing so it is completely and fully a style all it's own.

     

    With this response I think I have presented the most thorough argument I can muster. I will fail to convince people with this , and I don't care. This is strictly my opinion and it is the opinion of someone who has at least as much credibility as anyone else on this subject.

    With this I rest my case and ask for a vote from those who are following along at home.

    Think of me as the Perry Mason of the Rock'n'Roll courtroom.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You really haven't answered the question of what is Rock. If I strip the influences out of what you call Rock what do I have left? Give me one example of the pure form of Rock. What constitutes that core sound you seem to be saying exists that is purely Rock? How can you strip Rock down to its simplest form when in fact it is a melding of different musical forms?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    David, think of a dog....a mongrel. 

    This dog has no name....so we call it a mongrel....it is not "pure" by definition.

    When you ask what is "purely Rock", that is a question that has no answer.

    Rock was a mixture of styles that came before it....a mongrel.

    Think now of an octopus with tentacles emerging form all sides....these tentacles are the sub-genres of Rock....and they are connected to Rock at the base.....or you could visualize roots of tree, if you prefer plants to sea creatures.

    This "tentacle" or "root" forms close to the main body ...but it has no connecting thread , it is apart from the main body. However it is near the main body or tree trunk so we say it must have broke away , somehow. Yet, closer examination shows that it is very different, not really similar visually, in color, shape or feel ( maybe even taste or smell). We conclude that it is a new entity.

    Rock'n'Roll becomes a music style in the 50s ( although it may have existed below the surface way before that) , every other music style that existed before Rock cannot be considered a "sub-genre"...but a "seed" so to speak. Do we conclude that Rock is a sub-genre of one of the earlier music styles?...which one?

    Rap is also a mongrel style. Is it just even slightly possible that it is not a sub-genre of another style, but , in fact, a style all its' own?

    Why can't a whole new style of music emerge in the 1980s , as Rock did in the 1950s?.....another "mongrel?" 

    Is every style of music that emerged after the 1950s a sub-genre of Rock?

    I simply do not buy into this theory....if that's what it is.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    David, think of a dog....a mongrel. 

    This dog has no name....so we call it a mongrel....it is not "pure" by definition.

    When you ask what is "purely Rock", that is a question that has no answer.

    Rock was a mixture of styles that came before it....a mongrel.

    Think now of an octopus with tentacles emerging form all sides....these tentacles are the sub-genres of Rock....and they are connected to Rock at the base.....or you could visualize roots of tree, if you prefer plants to sea creatures.

    This "tentacle" or "root" forms close to the main body ...but it has no connecting thread , it is apart from the main body. However it is near the main body or tree trunk so we say it must have broke away , somehow. Yet, closer examination shows that it is very different, not really similar visually, in color, shape or feel ( maybe even taste or smell). We conclude that it is a new entity.

    Rock'n'Roll becomes a music style in the 50s ( although it may have existed below the surface way before that) , every other music style that existed before Rock cannot be considered a "sub-genre"...but a "seed" so to speak. Do we conclude that Rock is a sub-genre of one of the earlier music styles?...which one?

    Rap is also a mongrel style. Is it just even slightly possible that it is not a sub-genre of another style, but , in fact, a style all its' own?

    Why can't a whole new style of music emerge in the 1980s , as Rock did in the 1950s?.....another "mongrel?" 

    Is every style of music that emerged after the 1950s a sub-genre of Rock?

    I simply do not buy into this theory....if that's what it is.

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    I understand what you are saying, but why is Rap the only new mongrel? Prog and Metal are mongrels too so should we consider them a whole new style? Music styles such as Soul & Funk are just as much rock 'n' roll as the music of Little Richard, Bo Diddley, and Fats Domino, Sam Cooke, and James Brown. If you don't see those artists as rock 'n' roll then we disagree on the definition. So I would ask, why is Prog a form of rock but not Funk? How does one measure the amount of "rockness" in a song? 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    I understand what you are saying, but why is Rap the only new mongrel? Prog and Metal are mongrels too so should we consider them a whole new style? Music styles such as Soul & Funk are just as much rock 'n' roll as the music of Little Richard, Bo Diddley, and Fats Domino, Sam Cooke, and James Brown. If you don't see those artists as rock 'n' roll then we disagree on the definition. So I would ask, why is Prog a form of rock but not Funk? How does one measure the amount of "rockness" in a song? 



    Yes, prog and metal were whole new styles, absolutely.

    What prog added to rock was the structures and instrumentation of classical music-often of course supplied by the 'new instrument' of the synthesizer.

    But Yes and ELP were 'prog rock' because along with these new elements they also maintained the conventional elements of guitar and bass and drums.

    Other artists who made music using only the synthesizer, like Walter/Wendy Carlos for example, would not be filed under prog rock, or rock of any type, but under electronic music.    

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    I did a quick search and found a site that listed 100 sub- genres of Rock.

    Now this is more than a little ridiculous.

    Here are a few:

    Jersey Shore Sound 

    Screamo

    Afro -Punk

    Shoegazing

    Sadcore

    Power Violence

    Noisepop

    Nintendocore

    ...and my favorites: Pornogrind and Oi!

    Oddly enough , Rap was not listed.

    In no way whatsoever am I trying to indicate that the people who made this list are an authority on anything (except list making)....but they came up with 100 sub-genres without listing Rap.

    In my own opinion , these are the major divisions you could use to define Rock:

    Rockabilly 

    Blues based Rock (or more simply Blues Rock)

    Progressive Rock

    Psychedlic Rock

    Southern Rock

    Heavy Metal Rock ( or more commonly called Heavy Metal)

    Punk Rock ( which should include it's more radio friendly cousin New Wave, which would become Post-Punk in the 80s...simply because it was similar and cane "after" Punk)

    Alternative Rock (which is often indistinquishable from some Psychedelic and Punk Rock...describes a time period more than a style, I would say).

    Grunge

    Jazz/Rock Fusion

    Surf Rock

    Now I have deliberately omitted Garage Rock, Soft Rock and Arena Rock as those terms are nonsense.....Bands that are defined under "garage bands" do not really record their music in a garage. Arena bands only played live shows in arenas they recorded in the a studio much like garage bands did. Soft Rock is a meaningless definition as anything "soft" is not rock ( ever get hit by a stone?...even a small one?...they are all hard).

    Of course you have heard many, many others and some may have credibility, I tried to touch on what I feel are the major ones.

    I feel that some forms of music which are also "mongrels" evolved from some of the same sources Reggae, Funk, Soul and Hip-Hop/Rap. Each of these has it's own sub-genres , each of these has enough distinction to not be under the umbrella of Rock. Each is a genre all it's own. I don't feel comfortable with Reggae as a form of Rock, it does evolve from Rhythm and Blues but it goes down a different path, ironically it meets up with Rock again in the 70s with Graham Parker, The Police and the Clash...all of these bands use Reggae beats in SOME of their songs , just as The Beatles used Classical instruments in SOME of their songs. The use of another style integrated with Rock has gone on since the beginning ( where ever that is thought to be), it does not mean The Clash can now be classified as a Reggae Band, it doesn't mean that Reggae is now a sub genre of Rock ( although it can be absorbed in the Rock sound....it is still not Rock).

    I think the simple way to define whether a style is a sub-genre of Rock is - Does it have ROCK in the name?...LOOK ABOVE: The only major sub-genre I have listed that does not contain the word "Rock" is Grunge...perhaps it is a sub-sub genre of Alternative....which is really only Post Punk from the late 80s and beyond.

    I don't really know how Rock became divided into so many categories, except that there is so damn much of it and when you describe a band to someone who has never heard them , you need some way of expressing what they sound like....as Billy Joel ( who is NOT a Rock artist, but a singer-songwriter who does do the occasional Rock song) once said, "you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine."

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    I think I see a problem with this rock 'n' roll definition debate. It seems that the music of certain artists that I see as part of the rock 'n' roll family tree are seen as separate from what others call  simply rock music. Artists like Bo Diddley, Little Richard, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Sam Cooke. and James Brown are not viewed as rock 'n' roll but as a separate style of music often lumped into the category r&b. I see r&b and rock 'n' roll as pretty much the same thing, the main difference being in the rhythms and sometimes the instruments used. But in my view, they are inextricably linked and all fall under the general rock 'n' roll category. Much of what black artists created was always listed on separate charts, once called "race records", then it became r&b.

    I have this promotional two CD set put out by Rhino of Billboard hits. One disc is called Top Rock 'n' Roll Hits and the other is called Top R&B Hits.

    The R&B disc contains these artists, among others:

    Bo Diddley

    The Teenagers Featuring Frankie Lymon

    The Impressions

    Martha and the Vandellas

    The Supremes

    The Miracles

    Marvin Gaye

    Johnnie Taylor

    Sly & the Family Stone

    On the Rock 'n' Roll side there are:

    Bill Haley & the Comets

    Carl Perkins

    The Crickets

    Jerry Lee Lewis

    The Everly Brothers

    The Beach Boys

    The Righteous Brothers

    The Jackson 5

    Steppenwolf

    I think this kind of points out how arbitrarily these labels can be used. The R&B side contains nothing but black artists. The Rock 'n' Roll side has mostly white artists, yet includes the Righteous Brothers who are white Soul singers. Why aren't the Jackson 5 on the R&B disc when their music is not all that different from the Motown artists on that disc? If Sly & the Family Stone aren't rock 'n' roll, then I'd like to know why not. And if Bo Diddley ain't rock 'n' roll, nobody is.

    This is just another example, among many, of the absurdity of trying to label pop music.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    Usually the labelling thing doesn't bother me that much because I don't really take it very seriously.  It amuses me more than anything.

    It seems like the Hall of Fame thing is the only reason it becomes an issue for me.

    On a related note, speaking of labels, I was on Wikipedia reading about a certain novelist and I found out about 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' movements in literature. 

    'Postmodern' is a pretty amusing term in itself.   

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    [/QUOTE]


    You really haven't answered the question of what is Rock. If I strip the influences out of what you call Rock what do I have left? Give me one example of the pure form of Rock. What constitutes that core sound you seem to be saying exists that is purely Rock? How can you strip Rock down to its simplest form when in fact it is a melding of different musical forms?

    [/QUOTE]

    Grunge is pure rock, loud, simple and dirty.  Nirvana, Alice in Chains, soundgarded, STP.  These Bands played loud and hard. No flutes, chimes, horns in the background. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    [/QUOTE]


    You really haven't answered the question of what is Rock. If I strip the influences out of what you call Rock what do I have left? Give me one example of the pure form of Rock. What constitutes that core sound you seem to be saying exists that is purely Rock? How can you strip Rock down to its simplest form when in fact it is a melding of different musical forms?

    [/QUOTE]

    Grunge is pure rock, loud, simple and dirty.  Nirvana, Alice in Chains, soundgarded, STP.  These Bands played loud and hard. No flutes, chimes, horns in the background. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Helter Skelter is pure Rock

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to jesseyeric's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Grunge is pure rock, loud, simple and dirty.  Nirvana, Alice in Chains, soundgarded, STP.  These Bands played loud and hard. No flutes, chimes, horns in the background. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Helter Skelter is pure Rock

    [/QUOTE]

    Helter Skelter is so loud and deliberately noisy that, as you have said yourself, it's one of the first pieces of heavy metal.  

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    Can pure Rock have kazoo in it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KngOuqUm-mQ

    Or flute?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KR2H16Mr5g

    Or bagpipes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFlNo1NjAEQ

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can pure Rock have kazoo in it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KngOuqUm-mQ

    Or flute?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KR2H16Mr5g

    Or bagpipes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFlNo1NjAEQ

    [/QUOTE]

    You keep using the word "pure" as if there is such a thing or ever was.

    Rock is like a many faceted stone ( no pun untended) with many faces and none of them is pure and none of them is Rap.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can pure Rock have kazoo in it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KngOuqUm-mQ

    Or flute?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KR2H16Mr5g

    Or bagpipes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFlNo1NjAEQ

    [/QUOTE]

    You keep using the word "pure" as if there is such a thing or ever was.

    Rock is like a many faceted stone ( no pun untended) with many faces and none of them is pure and none of them is Rap.

    [/QUOTE]

    But if rock n' roll is so multi-faceted, then it's a little specious to think that Rap can't be one of them, "impure" though it may be.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    This horse is just about dead... 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: More: Why rap is rock

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Can pure Rock have kazoo in it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KngOuqUm-mQ

    Or flute?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KR2H16Mr5g

    Or bagpipes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFlNo1NjAEQ

    [/QUOTE]


    lol, I purposely put flute due to my very strong dislike of Tull.  Their music is about as RnR as anything Perry Como ever did. 

     

Share